Government_Responses_to_Questions_28JUN16.docx

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Questions and Answers provided with Amend. 0002 (Filename: Government_Responses_to_Questions_16JUN16.docx)

Document Date: 16 June 2016

Reference Section/Paragraph: N/A

Question/Comment:

In the Q&A’s provided with Amendment 0002 (see page 31 of 31 of file named “Government_Responses_to_Questions_16JUN16.docx” ) the Government stated that the front matter was included in the page count.

The cover page, table of contents, list of figures and tables and list of acronyms might require 10-12 pages which, if included in the page count, could impact bidder’s ability to fully address the requirements of the RFP, SOW and SSS.

Request the Government not include the front matter (defined as cover page, list of figures/tables and acronym list) in page count limits for Volumes I and II.

Response: Page count limitations were previously increased due to questions received from industry, taking into consideration that the front matter would also be included in the limitation. Volumes I and II limitations remain unchanged.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: W900KK-16-R-0005_Conformed_per_Amnd_0002.docx

Document Date: Released 6/16/2016

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section K

Question/Comment:

Please clarify whether the responses/fill-ins for the CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE in Section K should be included under Section 2 (Representations and Certifications) or Section 3 (All Clause Fill-Ins) of the Business Volume VI.

Response: Information required by FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representation and Certifications is to be included in Section 2, fill-in clauses in Section K are to be included in Section 3.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: W900KK-16-R-0005_Conformed_per_Amnd_0002.docx; Questions and Answers

Reference Section/Paragraph: .2.4.1.3 CLOUD / DATA CENTER

Question/Comment:

SOW states, “The Contractor shall demonstrate in an operational test environment that the MI training capabilities are cloud enabled within 12 months of start of contract and cloud optimized within 24 months after contract start.”

The Justification & Approval (J&A) prepared 17 February 2016 (para.3.h.), states that the current contractor will be required to migrate the HCC to the Cloud during the bridge contract period (01 July 2015 – 31 December 2016). The Technical Data Package (TDP) provided by the Government does not contain technical information (e.g., SDD, SSDD, accreditation information) describing the Cloud-related efforts currently being performed under the referenced bridge contract. Can it be assumed that the incumbent contractor will successfully migrate the HCC to the cloud during the bridge contract’s period of performance? If so, request that this requirement be deleted from the SOW to reduce cost and eliminate duplicative efforts. If the Government has determined that risk exists regarding the successful completion of the requirement and as a result, desires to keep the requirement in the SOW, we request that the Government provide technical information related to current and end-state (at end of bridge contract) Cloud architecture and updated software design documentation related to its Cloud implementation.

06/16/16 Response: IEWTPT as a whole, including the TCC and HCC will have to be cloud enabled and optimized by the winning offeror. The requirement shall remain in the SOW as is. The current state of HCC cloud based capabilities is that it is currently being tested in a cloud environment. The end-state (at award of the new contract) is that the HCC will be operating to some initial level of prototyped cloud operation that will not have been formally tested or released. Additional HCC cloud migration work will be required to mature and formally test and release an HCC cloud based capability. All updated, relevant HCC cloud based developed capabilities as of the date of contract award will be transferred to the winning offeror.

QUESTION: The response to the above question implies that the TCC is not currently being cloud enabled, is not being tested within a cloud infrastructure, and that the TCC may not be cloud enabled at the time of the new contract award. Please clarify the state of the TCC cloud effort now and envisioned at time of award.

Response:

Currently, there is no TCC cloud solution or architecture in place, nor will there be prior to award.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.6.1.1 Earned Value Management System (EVMS) and L.6.6.4 Volume VI Submission Format.

Please clarify if the EVMS Plan should be included in BOTH the Cost Volume V (L.6.6.1.1: “If the offeror does not have a DCMA-validated EVMS system, the offeror must then provide an EVMS Plan with the proposal to be included in Volume V), and the Business Volume VI (L.6.6.4: “Section 4 – Documentation from DCMA regarding compliance with guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748 for Contractor’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS) if previously determined compliant OR EVMS Plan”).

L.6.6.1.1 has been updated to state the EVMS plan must be included in Volume VI – Business.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Reference (252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items and 252.227-7014 Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation); and Section L.7, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text (252.227-7017 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS. (JAN 2011))

Should the Offeror and/or Offeror’s teammates have any data or software rights restrictions to assert, which Proposal Volume should they be included with, IAW DFARS 252.227-7017 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS (JAN 2011); 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items; and 252.227-7014 Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation?

Response: Any software or data rights restrictions should be included in Section 3 of the Business Volume, in accordance with L.6.6.4.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section L.6.6 (VOLUME VI – BUSINESS) and Section L.6.6.4 (Volume VI Submission Format)

Please clarify if the government intends for “Section 3 – All Clause Fill-Ins” of the Business Volume to reflect a Model Contract Volume as response to the solicitation? If not, please provide additional instructions for the “All Clause Fill-Ins” Section 3 response.

All clauses and provisions of the solicitation that require fill-ins, other than FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications, must be completed and included in Section 3.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Reference (52.211-11 -- Liquidated Damages -- Supplies, Services, or Research and Development)

Can the government please clarify how it intends to enact the above-referenced clause against the IEWTPT Statement of Work?

The referenced clause has been removed.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Reference (252.225-7003 Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission with Offer)

Please confirm if the above-referenced clause and associated DD Form 2139 should only be included in the Offeror’s proposal response if the place of performance is NOT a government-directed OCONUS location?

The clause is correct. For Government-directed OCONUS locations a DD2139 is not required. A DD2139 is only required for work being performed OCONUS that could be performed inside the United States or Canada and meets the conditions listed in 252.225-7003(b)

Reference Section/Paragraph: Sections L.6.5.2.1, L.6.5.3.2 and L.6.5.3.6

The requirement in the later sections (L.6.5.3…) indicate that all CPFF CLINs shall be supported with detailed data in support of the efforts proposed. However, the language to support the Not-To-Exceed ceilings in the customer funded CLINs (also CPFF) require offerors to not adjust the ceiling, ensuring the total of the Cost and Fixed Fee equals the Not-To-Exceed ceilings provided by the Government. The development of detailed data in this manner could be inconsistent if the total Not-To-Exceed amount is pre-determined. Are offerors required to submit the detailed data (labor categories, hours, direct labor, subcontractor cost, indirect rates, etc.) for the Not-To-Exceed CPFF CLINs?

Due to the reactionary nature of specific work that will be necessary under the CLINs with NTEs provided, the information referenced (labor categories, labor hours, direct labor, subcontractor cost, indirect rates, etc) is required to support the level of effort that the cost will allow, once a fee amount is determined that completes the calculation of cost and fee equaling the NTE. As the type of work (development, PDSS, concurrency) is of a similar nature to the same type of work for the core IEWTPT effort, the structure of support is expected to be consistent across CLINs of the same type of work, but with varying amounts.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: W900KK-16-R-0005_Conformed_per_Amnd_0002.docx; Questions and Answers

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section L.6.5.4 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Question/Comment:

The requirement in this section indicates that the offeror’s proposal shall provide a breakdown for all cost type CLINs of the costs proposed down to a minimum of level three WBS elements and shall be shown by labor, material, overhead, other direct cost, subcontracts, and General and Administration (G&A). The development of detailed data in this manner could be inconsistent if the total Not-To-Exceed amount is pre-determined. Are offerors required to submit the WBS breakdown (labor, material, overhead, other direct cost, subcontracts, and General and Administration (G&A) etc.) for the Not-To-Exceed CPFF CLINs?

The WBS breakdown for CLINs with provided NTEs is required to show the breakdown of support allowed within the provided NTEs. As the type of work (development, PDSS, concurrency) is of a similar nature to the same type of work for the core IEWTPT effort, the structure of support is expected to be consistent across CLINs of the same type of work, but with varying amounts.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment_5_Evaluated_Price_09JUN16.xlsx

Reference Section/Paragraph: Attachment 5 workbook; Attachment 5a worksheet

Referencing the appearance of CLIN 0010 as a Not-To-Exceed CPFF CLIN for the first two-year period, and then CLIN 1010, CLIN 2010, and CLIN 3010 as a ‘regular’ CPFF CLIN (assumedly requiring a cost build-up) for the option periods.

Can the Government confirm that this is correct, that the ‘Concurrency’ CLIN changes from a Not-To-Exceed CLIN in the base period to a ‘regular’ CPFF CLIN in the option periods?

If so, can the Government clarify why this ‘Concurrency’ CLIN changes from the base period to the option periods?

This is correct. As the first year of concurrency effort will largely be dependent upon the state of the system as developed by the incumbent and will be affected by transition activites, it has been determined that the effort would not be sufficiently within the control of the awardee and so an NTE is provided for the first year. After the transition is complete and the awardee has completed the first year of development these factors will no longer exist outside of the awardee’s control.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment_5_Evaluated_Price_09JUN16.xlsx

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section L.6.5.3.1

The requirement in this section indicates that the offeror’s proposal shall provide a Cost Breakdown Excel Workbook (editable and executable with formulas for all subtotals and totals) that contains all elements of cost according to each WBS element listed by CLIN, with all burdens identified for all CPFF CLINs for the prime and all proposed subcontractors as Appendix B to the Cost/Price Volume of the offeror’s proposal. The format and content will be in accordance with the instructions in FAR Table 15-2 (located at the end of FAR 15.408).

Are offerors required to submit one summary Table 15-2 for the entire program or a Table 15-2 for each CPFF CLIN?

If offerors are required to submit a Table 15-2 for each CPFF CLIN, are offerors required to submit a Table 15-2 for the Not-To-Exceed CPFF CLINs?

Response:

The information in Table 15-2 is required to be separated by each individual CPFF CLIN, including those with NTEs provided.

NOTE: Each table does not need to include every WBS element, only those elements applicable to the individual CLIN. For example, CLIN 2015, ALL SOURCE Development, Integration, and Test [FLETC] need only include WBS elements under 1.08D.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: N/A

Document Date: N/A

Reference Section/Paragraph: General

In light of the elaborate CLIN structure and the potential significant change to the solution based on the previous questions, would the Government provide industry an additional two weeks to most effectively provide our updated proposed solutions?

The submission deadline for proposals has been extended to July 20, 2016.